Given is a statement followed by two arguments. Decide which argument is strong. Statement: Is choosing junk food a better option to create interest in eating among children? Arguments: I. Yes, the best way to create interest is to give children the kind of food they like. II. No, junk food causes obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other health problems; it is important to induce healthy eating habits in children.

Introduction / Context:
This question considers whether junk food is a “better option” for increasing children's interest in eating. One argument emphasises that children will eat more readily if given food they like. The other argument stresses the serious health risks of junk food and the need to promote healthy habits. We must decide which argument is strong when the question explicitly uses the word “better”.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Statement: Is choosing junk food a better option to create interest in eating among children?
Argument I: Yes, giving food children like is the best way to make them interested in eating.
Argument II: No, junk food causes obesity, heart disease, diabetes and other problems; we must inculcate healthy eating habits.
Assume that junk food is typically high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, and that many children enjoy its taste.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument must consider the overall effect of the option, not just a short-term benefit. The word “better” implies a judgement considering both interest in eating and health consequences. An argument that focuses only on immediate liking but ignores long-term harm is weak. An argument that balances children's interest with health and habit formation is stronger.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate Argument I: It focuses only on the fact that children are more interested in food they enjoy, such as junk food. While it is true that children may be more eager to eat tasty junk food, the argument fails to consider the health impact or long-term behavioural patterns. It also ignores alternatives, such as making healthy food appealing through variety, presentation and positive reinforcement. Thus, Argument I is one-sided and does not answer whether junk food is a “better” option overall; it is a weak argument. Evaluate Argument II: It points out that junk food is associated with obesity, heart diseases, diabetes and other health problems. Childhood dietary habits often influence adult health; creating interest in healthy food early in life is crucial. Therefore, even if junk food increases interest in the short term, it is not a better option when health consequences are considered. Argument II directly addresses both the statement and long-term well-being, making it a strong argument.

Verification / Alternative check:
If a parent or health expert is asked what is a better way to create interest in eating, they will usually say that appealing, nutritious food and good eating habits are better than reliance on unhealthy junk food. Short-term enthusiasm for eating cannot outweigh serious risks. Hence, the reasoning in Argument II more closely reflects rational decision-making.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Saying both arguments are strong would elevate a narrow, short-term view (Argument I) to the same level as a comprehensive, health-focused view (Argument II).
Claiming that neither argument is strong is wrong because Argument II clearly provides serious, relevant reasons.
Saying only Argument I is strong or that either I or II is strong ignores the heavy weight of health consequences explained in Argument II.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to misinterpret “better option” as “option that works fastest”. Students may think that because junk food quickly attracts children, Argument I is strong. In reasoning questions, “better” must consider both effectiveness and side effects. When long-term harm is severe, an option cannot be considered better overall.

Final Answer:
Only Argument II is strong. Therefore, the correct option is Only argument II is strong.